[Tig] Is there anybody out there

[bobineinc at yahoo.com]

<I'm out of town next week but I'll try to do it for
you the week after.
(if I forget, please remind me :)>

Yes, I will remind you that film photography has a
limited dynamic range, and digital photography is a
lot worse than film.

<However, capturing in HDR is anotherstory.>

Are you capturing 3x's the exposure at the same time?
If not the problem is that. The image data  cannot
really be captured in a single exposure by digital
cameras, even if the image is saved as a RAW file.
That is why HDR works better with several different
photos of the same scene, with large exposure
differences between them. No motion or motion control.
Because monitors and print cannot render H.D.R.
pictures, it looks horrible and the output results are
often unnatural with oftem times more noise than
usual, even with the best tonal-mappers. For now most
of us prefer maintaining local contrast with GND. 

<In the same way that a negative has a higher dynamic
range than a filmprint,
rec709, etc., a digital camera with wider latitude can
have the sameadvantages.
Having a larger latitude give you the option to
transfer the widerlatitude
to the output medium more optimally according to your
preference. 
For example, when we capture raw, we're capturing the
full range of the
sensor in linear to light. By doing so, we can then
adjust the exposure
in post to a certain extent rather than baking it in
on set to fit into
rec709. Because we're not compressing the highlights
from 14bits 
down to 10bits, an overexposure can more easily be
mapped down.
On the other hand, you also have the full range to
work with so if
you chose to pull down the highlight data so you can
see the detail
in the highlights, the data is still there. In most
cases though, a more
contrasty mapping is used rather than a wide range,
low contrastmapping.
After the mapping stage, you then take it into CC as
you normally would
in print density or rec709. Some of the colorists
we've talked toactually
prefer to get the data in it's unmapped state because
it gives>

Now, I am trying to understand you correctly this
time:). You're saying that it is better to work with
what the camera sensors see in raw form, right? 
This means that we will have to approximate the
primary colors like the camera software does. i.e. we
will have to approximate the raw form of a
Bayer-sensor with 2x's green vs. red-blue photons, the
raw form of a Foveon-sensor with 3x's colors each
pixel-site, the raw form of a Sony sensor with 4
colors-emerald/green-red-green-blue. This mean that we
will have to demosaic a raw image into a final image
with full color information for each sensors like the
camera software does. This means that we will have to
computed the color to achieve higher resolution like
the camera software does. This means that we  will
have to extract more resolution with less noise like
the camera software does... Who is providing all this
specific software? 
Isn't it the job of the digital R&D and camera
department?
Now, I agree that with Raw file there is no
compression, no sharpening and more dynamic range that
let say a Jpeg. 

<them
more options CC rather than some arbitrary HDR->visual
space mapping.> 

Most of us rather do great color correction and have
return clients.
  
<Although, what happens when there is no line on film
(ie. a smooth flat surface)?
There is detail (grain) where there is an absence of
detail so in this
sense grain is similar to noise because it's missing
data.>

I don't think so. Have you ever scan your 35mm film at
let say 4500PPI? That's another test for me to remind
you:) That way, we will get "close" to see what
film-resolution  really is! Comparing other formats
would be unfair!

<I'm notsaying
this is a bad thing (I quite like grain) but it's one
of the grey areas
between noise and grain. Grain definitely adds the
advantage
of increasing the perceived sharpness because it's
everywhere.>

...And big large pixels are everywhere too. I think we
should compare moving grain with large pixels and
compare film dirt/srachts with digital capture
fixed-pattern/random/banding noise...  


<The only real way is to do a side by side test and
judge for yourself.
You're welcome to come shoot anytime with our camera
if it interests you.
In my opinion, each has it's own advantages and
disadvantages.>

I agree that each has it's own advantages and
disadvantages. Film is georgous and digital is a lot
of fun to use.

<Definitely true. You definitely have to balance the
use of larger
pixels with resolution. Going for lots resolution and
sacrificing
dynamic range in my opinion not worth it. Likewise, to
dig more 
into the shadows in film without blocking up, you
shoot a faster 
film (or rating) which in turn increases the grain
size.>

What kind of film are we talking about?

<At the same time if you shoot with a grainier stock,
the grain
hides the wrinkles and replaces the detail with grain
structure
so you still perceive some sharpness but not the
detail
you really want to hide (wrinkles). Some B/W stocks do
this
particularly well.>

And I have seen a lots of websites that used bad
scanners to show film resolution on a computer
monitor:) No seriously what is your viewing output? 
Usually the bigger the grain the worst the skin is,
the smaller the grain the smoother the skin is. 

<I'm not sure if I understand your question
completely.
Clipping is function of many sensor and camera
designs. The actual
design of our sensor on a hardware level is that the
sensor sites
have an inherent shoulder of two to three stops above
white. 
So instead of going linear all the way up to white and
then 
clipping everything off, the sensor responds to more
light
at the very top in a more natural way.>

If you have solve the problem of horrible-color-shift
in the highlights that we get with digital capture,
then congrats. Still Neg-film has more range. 

<I've used photoshop from version 1.0 which I think
was
about the same time (or a bit later) as I was using
Radiance. 
For many years, Photoshop was strictly 8bits per
channel although
they were no doubt aware of higher range stuff. Don't
forget
to also include Thomas and John Knoll as the powers
behind
photoshop :)> 

For sure and now CS2 has gone 32bits-float.

http://www.bobinevideo.com/ Jais






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com